Subscribe to our blog
Policy Blog
Billzapoppin'
Follow @gigibsohnWith Easter recess just days away, legislators are rushing to introduce bills on a variety of issues PK cares about. As expected, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) introduced a [bill](http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/hr5055-109.pdf) that seeks to give fashion design copyright protection for three years. [I have already written]( http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/173) about why such protection is both unnecessary and counterproductive. Next on the list are two draft bills - one which I can show you, and one which I cannot. One is terrific, the other terrible. The first draft bill is the [Internet Neutrality Act]( http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/ina-staff-draft-20060404.pdf), co-sponsored by [Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)](http://snowe.senate.gov) and [Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND] which codifies net neutrality in a way we really like - with an enforceable prohibition against blocking, interference, discrimination against, impairment or degradation of any Internet content or services. The bill specifically requires network providers to "provide on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis the ability to offer, provide or post content, applications or services...in a manner that is at least equal to the speed and quality of service that the broadband network provider offers to affiliated content, etc." Ah, the non-discrimination word. Music to our ears. This bill is very similar to the [bill introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)]( http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/s2360-109.pdf) a few weeks ago, but this bill is backed by a bipartisan team that is on the Commerce committee, which is very important. The second bill, spearheaded by [Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)](http://feinstein.senate.gov/) is yet another attempt at tech mandates, specifically the digital broadcast and satellite radio flag. Supposedly, [Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)](http://cornyn.senate.gov/) and [Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)]( http://feinstein.senate.gov/) are possible co-sponsors. I can't show it to you yet, but here are some of the lowlights: • It is aimed at in-home and portable uses of content that the consumer has already paid to receive - it does not even purport to have anything with so-called "indiscriminate distribution" over the Internet • It would prohibit customary consumer recording based on specific songs, artists, genres, "or other user preferences." • It would wipe out the noncommercial, "fair use" recording that Americans have engaged in for decades. The real kicker is that the bill would permit performing and mechanical rights societies to circumvent technological protection measures used by satellite radio companies to ensure that their signals are not captured by non-subscribers. What makes this amazing is that this provision is being pushed by many of the same groups who argue that consumers should never be allowed to bypass technological locks, even for lawful reasons. If there is anything good to be said about the Feinstein bill, it is that it brings the Judiciary Committee into the tech mandate mix, which makes for more delay and confusion.
Internet CEOs Back Net Neutrality
Follow @artbrodskyBetter late than never -- maybe. Even as the House Telecom Subcommittee is debating amendments to draft legislation, the CEOs of the big Internet e-commerce companies have sent a letter in favor of an amendment that will come up later backing Net Neutrality. Might have been nice a little earlier, but there's still markup at full committee to be considered. That will come in a couple of weeks. Here's a link to the letter:
Congressional Net Neutrality Events
Follow @artbrodskyThis will be a busy week for Net Neutrality on Capitol Hill. The fun starts at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, when the House Telecom Subcommittee officially kicks off the mark up of telecom legislation. The evening session will be devoted to opening statements, in which the members will stake out their priorities. The real legislative work will start the next morning, Wednesday, at 10 a.m. At that point, they will get down to actual amendments and changes to the draft bill. If necessary, the mark up will carry over to Thursday. Also this week, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Friday on market power of telcos and Net Neutrality. Officially, the hearing will be by the Committee's Task Force on Antitrust, which happens to have all of the committee members on it. The hearing will be at 10 a.m.
Close, but No CinemaNow
Follow @gigibsohnWhen I opened up my New York Times business section today and saw the headline: [At Last, Movies to Keep Arrive on the Internet]( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/business/03down.html), I got very excited. Finally, I would be able to cheer Hollywood for developing a new innovative online business model for distributing movies. We believe that such business models are the key to limiting illegal downloading of movies. Then I kept reading. First, the price of a new movie download will cost $20-$30. So despite the fact that Hollywood will have no packaging costs and almost no distribution costs, the price of the download will be as much, and in some cases more, than a physical DVD (Sony is the exception to this rule). Oh, and by the way, these downloads don't come with the same extra features as do a DVD. I'm very surprised at how addicted I've become to the extra features. I spent as much time this weekend watching the great extras on the DVD of [Murderball]( http://www.murderballmovie.com/) than I did watching the terrific move. Second, the different services offer fairly limited types of usage. [CinemaNow]( http://www.cinemanow.com/) will allow movies to be played on only one computer. [Movielink](http://www.moviewlink.com) will allow you to burn it to a DVD, which can be played on a computer, but not a regular DVD player. (Movielink will not function on a Mac or Linux operated computer either). None allows you to copy to an iPod or other MP3 player. Watching a downloaded movie on a TV is not impossible, but it is inconvenient. So while I applaud the movie studios for finally dipping their toe in the Internet download water, they have done little to ensure the success of this new business. Giving the consumer less content and functionality for a higher price is not the way to encourage adoption. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am right, I hope the studios will rework their services to better meet consumer needs and desires.
In the Know Podcast #14
PK's [In the Know newsletter](http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/) comes out today, and hopefully so will the podcast! Here are some of the details: PK in the Know:
[March 31, 2006](http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/itk-20060331) Contents: * [Net Neutrality Provisions in House Bill Draft Seen As Weak](http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/itk-20060331#story1) * [Something Different -- House Panel Hears Testimony on Content Controls](http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/intheknow/itk-20060331#story2) You will be able to find our podcast listed [here](http://www.ourmedia.org/user/31660) on our [OurMedia](http://www.ourmedia.org) account. * [the mp3 version](http://www.ourmedia.org/node/196946) * [the enhanced audio version--AAC](http://www.ourmedia.org/node/196951) * [subscribe to the In the Know podcast](http://www.ourmedia.org/mediarss/user/31660)
Fashion Copyright Police Part 2
Follow @gigibsohnThe [New York Times reports]( http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/fashion/thursdaystyles/30copy.html) today that a bill may be introduced in Congress as soon as today giving copyright protection to fashion design. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is said to be the principal sponsor - I'm not sure what fashion industry resides in rural Virginia. Designers like Diane Von Furstenberg and Zac Posen have been to Washington to push for this bill. The fashion designers seeking copyright protection are modeling their legislation after legislation passed in 1998 to protect boat hulls. I know nothing about the boat hull industry, but I do know that the fashion design industry has thrived under a system where rich people continue to pay top dollar for original designs, and the rest of us can only afford the knockoffs. If anything, the knockoffs tend to make the originals more valuable, not less. Indeed, no one seems to be claiming that they are losing revenue or sales from the lack of copyright protection - even if there were no knockoffs, I would never buy a $2000 pocketbook or a $1000 dress, and those who can afford to pay those prices would never buy the H&M version, which will undoubtedly be of far lesser quality. So what is the harm that needs to be addressed? And isn't there a bit of classism going on here? Only those who can afford style can obtain it, while the rest of us have to wait 3 years? A great article on the history of attempts to give fashion design copyright protection, by Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman, can be found [here](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=878401). The conclusion? That despite fashion design copy protection in the EU, almost nobody registers. It is trademark protection that fashion designers seem to really care about, and they already have that here in the US.
preservesthe openness of the Internet and the public's access to knowledge, promotes creativity through balanced copyright, and upholds and protects the rights of consumers to use innovative technology lawfully.
| STAY CONNECTED, JOIN OUR MAILING LIST |
